A Cyclist Knob with a Camera

From: GT on 19 May 2010 14:29
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
news:8368v5luol0u8bl3enkl9md0e9732scktk(a)4ax.com...> "GT" <a(a)b.c> considered Wed, 19 May 2010 13:46:17 +0100 the perfect
> time to write:
>
>>"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
>>news:mif5v594s09hk56kmfpjo0t06vmns0s6vf(a)4ax.com...
>>> ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> considered Tue, 18 May
>>> 2010 09:58:49 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 17 May 2010 18:31:07 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
>>>><davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The man is a well known knob. He has posted dozens of films on youtube
>>>>>to
>>>>>show how hard done by he is. Bit like Doug, but with a camera.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>anyone who doesn't leave enough time for his journey to work
>>>>on time and gets the sack is a fool and deserves the sack.
>>IFTFY

PS. This is great fun!!

From: The Medway Handyman on 19 May 2010 19:33
Doug wrote:> On 18 May, 19:41, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 17 May, 18:31, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-
>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>>>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>>>>> the police driver would have been able to see that the cyclist
>>>>>> had stopped completely (and well short of the centre island, well
>>>>>> done!), which means the cyclist is NOT about to wobble all over
>>>>>> the road or suddenly jump 5 feet to the right, and therefore can
>>>>>> be passed quite closely without any significant danger.
>>>>>> if it was a horse then yes, the police should have passed much
>>>>>> more carefully, but this is an obviously (from the recumbent)
>>>>>> experienced (probably adult) cyclist that has completely stopped.
>>
>>>>> If we assume that it were safe would it still be good manners to
>>>>> give someone who expects not to be seen this kind of fright?
>>
>>>> Why was it a fright? He must have heard the sirens.
>>
>>> Because he is not protected by a metal box and is therefore a
>>> vulnerable road user but is not treated as such.
>>
>> So you agree a push bike is not a viable form of transport? At last.
>>
> No its killer drivers who are not viable, in anywhere pretending to be
> a safety conscious society to live in. They mow down children on
> pavements as well as adults on roads and cyclists.
>
> Unless you are suggesting that cars are the only way for humans to
> move around these days, which make shopping and other activities
> impossible?

I wonder why the motor vehicle has risen to the top of the transport chain?

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

From: Doug on 20 May 2010 01:57
On 19 May, 13:55, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote:> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2c8e52fa-0ef4-4ca2-93d0-0ba1a2734348(a)q33g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 18 May, 14:51, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote:
> >> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:3c8080bc-d0fc-4804-87ad-ceb36d8f65bc(a)m4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> >> On 17 May, 18:31, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-
>
> >> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > Roger Thorpe wrote:
> >> > > Mrcheerful wrote:
> >> >> >> the police driver would have been able to see that the cyclist had
> >> >> >> stopped completely (and well short of the centre island, well
> >> >> >> done!), which means the cyclist is NOT about to wobble all over the
> >> >> >> road or suddenly jump 5 feet to the right, and therefore can be
> >> >> >> passed quite closely without any significant danger.
> >> >> >> if it was a horse then yes, the police should have passed much more
> >> >> >> carefully, but this is an obviously (from the recumbent)
> >> >> >> experienced
> >> >> >> (probably adult) cyclist that has completely stopped.
>
> >> >> > If we assume that it were safe would it still be good manners to
> >> >> > give
> >> >> > someone who expects not to be seen this kind of fright?
>
> >> >> Why was it a fright? He must have heard the sirens.
>
> >> >Because he is not protected by a metal box and is therefore a
> >> >vulnerable road user but is not treated as such.
>
> >> The police driver will have seen the adult pull over and stop as the
> >> sirens
> >> moved closer. He left an 18-inch gap between his car and the stationary
> >> vehicle as he knew that the cyclist was aware of the car's presense. If
> >> the
> >> cyclist had not been aware of the police car, then the driver would have
> >> left a much larger gap.
>
> >> >> The man is a well known knob. He has posted dozens of films on youtube
> >> >> to
> >> >> show how hard done by he is. Bit like Doug, but with a camera.
>
> >> >Seems like a good idea to video examples of bad driving and dangerous
> >> >situations instead of trying to brush it all under the carpet. As I
> >> >have cameras I might decide to start doing it, particularly drivers
> >> >going through red lights and driving on pavements.
>
> >> Good idea, then most cyclists would be banned - I rarely see a cyclist
> >> stop
> >> for a red light!! I have never seen a car go throught a red light or
> >> drive
> >> on the pavement.
>
> > That's because you are not looking for it and are only obsessed by
> > cyclists. I, OTOH, have often seen cars going through red lights and
> > sometimes driving along pavements. Also, they have to drive along
> > pavements to parked there.
>
> I'm fairly confident that I would notice a car driving through a red light
> or driving along a pavement! Of course cars have to cross pavements to get
> from the road to a parking space - are you seriously telling us that when
> you finish a journey on your bike, you dismount your bike in the road and
> carry it over the pavement to 'park' it? I certainly don't - I ride straight
> over the pavement and onto my drive.
>I am talking about where cars are allowed to park on pavements, and
some do so where they are not allowed. In order to get to a suitable
space they sometimes have to drive ALONG the pavements. Though why
cars were ever allowed to park on pavements in the first place remains
a complete mystery to me and is a sure indication of the dominance of
the car culture in our society.>
>
> >> The cyclist in the video has a number of clips posted on youtube. I have
> >> just watched a few and it seems that he likes to ride along about 1m out
> >> from the kerb which is fine. Problem is that he deliberately makes it
> >> hard
> >> for people to overtake him, so when they do he suddenly drifts out a
> >> metre
> >> or two apparently without looking or signalling. This clearly dangerous
> >> behaviour is carefully timed to occur just as the cars go past, which
> >> enables him to put on a frightened "waa" sound on film and then shout at
> >> them at the next set of lights. He then carefully positions his bike in
> >> the
> >> middle of the lane in front of all the cars who are patiently waiting
> >> their
> >> turn at the lights and then sets off slowly, so as to ensnare his next
> >> victim. He doesn't use the cycle lanes. He is clearly try to infuriate
> >> the
> >> car drivers who *are* able to maintain an appropriate speed for the road.
> >> In
> >> order to drive a car a driver must pass a test to prove their knowledge
> >> of
> >> the highway code, a document stating that vehicles unable to maintain a
> >> suitable speed for the road should pull over to let faster vehicles pass
> >> and
> >> avoid frustration!
>
> > You just love motorists don't you and hate cyclists, that much is
> > clearly apparent, despite the fact that motorists are much, much more
> > dangerous than cyclists.
>
> Far from it, motorists and cyclists are all just people. It is you who is
> filled with hatred for your fellow human race - you have stated numerous
> times that everyone with a driving license is a murderer!
>You exaggerate, for obvious reasons. I state that, due to the very
light sentences or none handed our for road killings, a driving
licence is a licence to kill, but only for most of those who have
killed.>
> My reply simply states facts and comment in relation to motoring laws that
> the motor car driver has to comply with. If a few rogue cyclists think that
> they can do anything they like, film it, then twist the truth round to imply
> that the law abiding motorist is at fault, then you are bound to annoy
> people and incur such responses!
>So called 'law abiding motorists', which the majority who exceed speed
limits are not, are in fact very much more dangerous than cyclists due
to their chosen mode of travel and its momentum.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

From: Doug on 20 May 2010 02:07
On 20 May, 00:33, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:> Doug wrote:
> > On 18 May, 19:41, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-
> > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 17 May, 18:31, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-
> >>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Roger Thorpe wrote:
> >>>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>
> >>>>>> the police driver would have been able to see that the cyclist
> >>>>>> had stopped completely (and well short of the centre island, well
> >>>>>> done!), which means the cyclist is NOT about to wobble all over
> >>>>>> the road or suddenly jump 5 feet to the right, and therefore can
> >>>>>> be passed quite closely without any significant danger.
> >>>>>> if it was a horse then yes, the police should have passed much
> >>>>>> more carefully, but this is an obviously (from the recumbent)
> >>>>>> experienced (probably adult) cyclist that has completely stopped.
>
> >>>>> If we assume that it were safe would it still be good manners to
> >>>>> give someone who expects not to be seen this kind of fright?
>
> >>>> Why was it a fright? He must have heard the sirens.
>
> >>> Because he is not protected by a metal box and is therefore a
> >>> vulnerable road user but is not treated as such.
>
> >> So you agree a push bike is not a viable form of transport? At last.
>
> > No its killer drivers who are not viable, in anywhere pretending to be
> > a safety conscious society to live in. They mow down children on
> > pavements as well as adults on roads and cyclists.
>
> > Unless you are suggesting that cars are the only way for humans to
> > move around these days, which make shopping and other activities
> > impossible?
>
> I wonder why the motor vehicle has risen to the top of the transport chain?
>Peer pressure fed by mass production.

In the beginning cars could only be afforded by the rich and then
prices came down due to mass production and the poor, ever eager to
emulate the rich, started joining in. Then not to be outdone by their
neighbours, possession of a suitably styled car became mandatory and
so car use escalated to its now vast proportions, and with it the
chaos and harm caused by such uncontrollable mass behaviour and the
widespread problem it presents today.

From: Tony Dragon on 20 May 2010 02:09
Doug wrote:> On 19 May, 13:55, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote:
>> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2c8e52fa-0ef4-4ca2-93d0-0ba1a2734348(a)q33g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 18 May, 14:51, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote:
>>>> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:3c8080bc-d0fc-4804-87ad-ceb36d8f65bc(a)m4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On 17 May, 18:31, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-
>>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>>>>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>>>> the police driver would have been able to see that the cyclist had
>>>>>>>> stopped completely (and well short of the centre island, well
>>>>>>>> done!), which means the cyclist is NOT about to wobble all over the
>>>>>>>> road or suddenly jump 5 feet to the right, and therefore can be
>>>>>>>> passed quite closely without any significant danger.
>>>>>>>> if it was a horse then yes, the police should have passed much more
>>>>>>>> carefully, but this is an obviously (from the recumbent)
>>>>>>>> experienced
>>>>>>>> (probably adult) cyclist that has completely stopped.
>>>>>>> If we assume that it were safe would it still be good manners to
>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>> someone who expects not to be seen this kind of fright?
>>>>>> Why was it a fright? He must have heard the sirens.
>>>>> Because he is not protected by a metal box and is therefore a
>>>>> vulnerable road user but is not treated as such.
>>>> The police driver will have seen the adult pull over and stop as the
>>>> sirens
>>>> moved closer. He left an 18-inch gap between his car and the stationary
>>>> vehicle as he knew that the cyclist was aware of the car's presense. If
>>>> the
>>>> cyclist had not been aware of the police car, then the driver would have
>>>> left a much larger gap.
>>>>>> The man is a well known knob. He has posted dozens of films on youtube
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> show how hard done by he is. Bit like Doug, but with a camera.
>>>>> Seems like a good idea to video examples of bad driving and dangerous
>>>>> situations instead of trying to brush it all under the carpet. As I
>>>>> have cameras I might decide to start doing it, particularly drivers
>>>>> going through red lights and driving on pavements.
>>>> Good idea, then most cyclists would be banned - I rarely see a cyclist
>>>> stop
>>>> for a red light!! I have never seen a car go throught a red light or
>>>> drive
>>>> on the pavement.
>>> That's because you are not looking for it and are only obsessed by
>>> cyclists. I, OTOH, have often seen cars going through red lights and
>>> sometimes driving along pavements. Also, they have to drive along
>>> pavements to parked there.
>> I'm fairly confident that I would notice a car driving through a red light
>> or driving along a pavement! Of course cars have to cross pavements to get
>> from the road to a parking space - are you seriously telling us that when
>> you finish a journey on your bike, you dismount your bike in the road and
>> carry it over the pavement to 'park' it? I certainly don't - I ride straight
>> over the pavement and onto my drive.
>>
> I am talking about where cars are allowed to park on pavements, and
> some do so where they are not allowed. In order to get to a suitable
> space they sometimes have to drive ALONG the pavements.

Can you explain then, why it is that I have not seen a car driving along
a pavement for longer than I can remember.
I don't mean where motor vehicles are driven across pavements to access
premises, or vehicles on pavements as part of utilities etc work.> Though why
> cars were ever allowed to park on pavements in the first place remains
> a complete mystery to me and is a sure indication of the dominance of
> the car culture in our society.

Err, no it isant.

>>
>>>> The cyclist in the video has a number of clips posted on youtube. I have
>>>> just watched a few and it seems that he likes to ride along about 1m out
>>>> from the kerb which is fine. Problem is that he deliberately makes it
>>>> hard
>>>> for people to overtake him, so when they do he suddenly drifts out a
>>>> metre
>>>> or two apparently without looking or signalling. This clearly dangerous
>>>> behaviour is carefully timed to occur just as the cars go past, which
>>>> enables him to put on a frightened "waa" sound on film and then shout at
>>>> them at the next set of lights. He then carefully positions his bike in
>>>> the
>>>> middle of the lane in front of all the cars who are patiently waiting
>>>> their
>>>> turn at the lights and then sets off slowly, so as to ensnare his next
>>>> victim. He doesn't use the cycle lanes. He is clearly try to infuriate
>>>> the
>>>> car drivers who *are* able to maintain an appropriate speed for the road.
>>>> In
>>>> order to drive a car a driver must pass a test to prove their knowledge
>>>> of
>>>> the highway code, a document stating that vehicles unable to maintain a
>>>> suitable speed for the road should pull over to let faster vehicles pass
>>>> and
>>>> avoid frustration!
>>> You just love motorists don't you and hate cyclists, that much is
>>> clearly apparent, despite the fact that motorists are much, much more
>>> dangerous than cyclists.
>> Far from it, motorists and cyclists are all just people. It is you who is
>> filled with hatred for your fellow human race - you have stated numerous
>> times that everyone with a driving license is a murderer!
>>
> You exaggerate, for obvious reasons. I state that, due to the very
> light sentences or none handed our for road killings, a driving
> licence is a licence to kill, but only for most of those who have
> killed.

No. you use phrases like 'killer motorists', terrorist drivers'

>> My reply simply states facts and comment in relation to motoring laws that
>> the motor car driver has to comply with. If a few rogue cyclists think that
>> they can do anything they like, film it, then twist the truth round to imply
>> that the law abiding motorist is at fault, then you are bound to annoy
>> people and incur such responses!
>>
> So called 'law abiding motorists', which the majority who exceed speed
> limits are not, are in fact very much more dangerous than cyclists due
> to their chosen mode of travel and its momentum.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Surely speeding is only a numbers thing, like having an overpowered
'e-bike'.
--
Tony Dragon